Requesting a New Approach To Be Made

NealRomeoGolf

NealRomeoGolf

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
4,938
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
NRG
My airport is a small airport sitting under a sleepy Class C. It has a north-south runway with just an RNAV/GPS approach to runway 18. Circle to land 36 is NA at night.

A few months ago I contacted the airport authority to ask why an RNAV approach was never made/requested for 36. The director responded and said he didn't know but would ask the tower supervisor if there would be a reason. Creating an RNAV to 36 would cross the approach path to runway 31 and 22 at the Class C airport.

I never got an answer and sent two follow up emails without reply. If I go into the FAA instrument gateway system, I can request a study for the RNAV to 36. It asks whether I've coordinated it with the local airport authority. Would I be in the wrong saying "yes"? I've told them I'm interested in it being looked at. He didn't say do it.

Who pays for approaches to be studied and done? If I put the request in, is our airport authority on the hook for funding it? I don't want to get crossways with the airport authority but last week gave me a real scenario where if my alternator hadn't failed (canceling my flight home) I would have ended up unable to land at the home airport and would've had to park at the Class C and have my wife pick me up. It was pushing dark and winds were strongly out of the north. Making an approach to 31 at the Class C and then going Special VFR to 36 might have worked.

TL/DR - would like a new approach for runway 36 but don't want to make the airport authority mad.
 
The approach procedure development is not paid for by the airport (for a public-use procedure at a public-use airport). It's part of the government budget.

Sometimes to have an approach, work needs to be done on the airport like markings/paint, obstacle studies, obstacle removal, lighting, etc. This may or may not be funded by the airport, or through local/county/state means, or through federal grants. But regardless, you won't be committing anybody to any funding just by asking for an approach.

I do think that the reason you have to put the airport manager's name and contact information in there is that the FAA will then contact this person to discuss how to proceed. I'm sure this acts as a filter of sorts.

Whether this will make him mad, well I can't say on that.
 
This is a popular question over at my home field. The basic answer is that it requires a lot more work (and money) than what meets the eye and there’s probably more than one reason why they don’t already have an approach to the opposite runway.

In our case, the surrounding terrain would require the approach minimums to be impractically high. A considerable amount of trees would need to be cleared on either side of the runway and the property size itself won’t allow for it due to obstructions. It’s also a self funded airport, even though it’s owned by the local municipality, so the cost of meeting the requirements for an approach (some $50k plus) just isn’t in the budget.
 
RyanB said:
This is a popular question over at my home field. The basic answer is that it requires a lot more work (and money) than what meets the eye and there’s probably more than one reason why they don’t already have an approach to the opposite runway.

In our case, the surrounding terrain would require the approach minimums to be impractically high. A considerable amount of trees would need to be cleared on either side of the runway and the property size itself won’t allow for it due to obstructions. It’s also a self funded airport, even though it’s owned by the local municipality, so the cost of meeting the requirements for an approach (some $50k plus) just isn’t in the budget.
Click to expand...

It would be nice, but yeah, a lot of modifications would need to be made, and CHA isn't far away when a diversion is necessary.
 
The irony is runway 36 has the papi and some runway strobe lights. Runway 18 has neither of those. The 36 end would have to be painted differently for sure to comply.

The only obstacle (pun intended) I can see is the crossing of approach paths. But I'd take a hold any day over having to park at the Charlie and paying their ridiculous $75 parking fee.
 
Does your airport authority have regular meetings? It wouldn’t hurt to meet the board members and find out if they will try to get a new approach put together. Some airport boards are non-pilots, some are only VFR pilots, and some have the IFR pilots who will go to bat to get better approaches.
 
Bill said:
It would be nice, but yeah, a lot of modifications would need to be made, and CHA isn't far away when a diversion is necessary.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and depending on the ceilings, can always shoot the approach at CHA, break out and then skirt over.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
My airport is a small airport sitting under a sleepy Class C. It has a north-south runway with just an RNAV/GPS approach to runway 18. Circle to land 36 is NA at night.

A few months ago I contacted the airport authority to ask why an RNAV approach was never made/requested for 36. The director responded and said he didn't know but would ask the tower supervisor if there would be a reason. Creating an RNAV to 36 would cross the approach path to runway 31 and 22 at the Class C airport.

I never got an answer and sent two follow up emails without reply. If I go into the FAA instrument gateway system, I can request a study for the RNAV to 36. It asks whether I've coordinated it with the local airport authority. Would I be in the wrong saying "yes"? I've told them I'm interested in it being looked at. He didn't say do it.

Who pays for approaches to be studied and done? If I put the request in, is our airport authority on the hook for funding it? I don't want to get crossways with the airport authority but last week gave me a real scenario where if my alternator hadn't failed (canceling my flight home) I would have ended up unable to land at the home airport and would've had to park at the Class C and have my wife pick me up. It was pushing dark and winds were strongly out of the north. Making an approach to 31 at the Class C and then going Special VFR to 36 might have worked.

TL/DR - would like a new approach for runway 36 but don't want to make the airport authority mad.
Click to expand...

Is this for 3MY? I suspect it's because 1) they don't have a good survey in hand, or 2) it would conflict with missed approach at PIA. To get the best answer, reach out to the Central Section TERPS person here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...fs400/media/FPAG_SCA_Division_of_Work_Map.pdf
 
RyanB said:
Yeah, and depending on the ceilings, can always shoot the approach at CHA, break out and then skirt over.
Click to expand...

We could always go for Jerry 2ndary minimums and do the long circle to land...
 
Brad Z said:
2) it would conflict with missed approach at PIA
Click to expand...
I thought of this, but aren't there lots of places where that conflict would exist? I've never study approach charts for the LA basin but I would imagine there's all sorts of criss crossing going on? Anyway, email sent to Central TERPS primary.
 
Call him back and ask, let him know what you want to do and if you could check that box for his support.
 
Brad Z said:
To get the best answer, reach out to the Central Section TERPS person here
Click to expand...
In classic government fashion, the person I emailed replied (a week later) and said "you have the wrong person, there are two of us with the same name here." No offer to help me find the right person. I replied and sent a screen shot of what you gave me for contacts and asked if the list is just wrong (I copied the email directly out of the FAA's own file). I don't expect a reply. Maybe I'll try the secondary contact.
 
Below are some 2016 example costs for procedure development and maintenance:

Development of RNAV IFP with one line of minima: $10,000
Average annual cost of maintenance per RNAV IFP: $2,300
Departure procedure Development: $6,400
Average annual cost of maintenance for departure procedure: $760

The FAA is trying to reduce costs associated with IAPs. I suspect they won’t do a new approach for a sleepy airport.
 
Last edited:
NealRomeoGolf said:
In classic government fashion, the person I emailed replied (a week later) and said "you have the wrong person, there are two of us with the same name here." No offer to help me find the right person. I replied and sent a screen shot of what you gave me for contacts and asked if the list is just wrong (I copied the email directly out of the FAA's own file). I don't expect a reply. Maybe I'll try the secondary contact.
Click to expand...
It looks like they got the email wrong on the pdf. Remove the "topher" and it should go to the correct person. Your email went to a controller with the same name.

I'm sorry to hear that person was not particularly customer service oriented. When I first joined the agency there was a radar tech across the country with the same name as me. People would often incorrectly send emails to him rather than me, and he would either ignore them or respond with a snarky I don't know what this is response. Thankfully he finally retired, but I'm still stuck with my middle initial in my email address. Once a high level exec came by my office to ask if I was okay. Confused, I asked her what she meant. She had apparently directly emailed me a question on a matter I was working on and the other Brad Z. replied with a "I have no idea what this is and I have no idea what the status is." Sigh.
 
Years ago, my base airport (I have moved since) checked and the minimals for an approach were almost the same as the MVA so no approach was created. Orlando Approach just vectored us at MVA and if we could see the airport lights, we canceled and landed. If we did not see the lights, we went to one of the airports 15-20 miles away that had ILS's to 200'.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I thought of this, but aren't there lots of places where that conflict would exist? I've never study approach charts for the LA basin but I would imagine there's all sorts of criss crossing going on?
Click to expand...

Yes, LA airspace complex has a number of missed approaches that cause possible conflicts. One of the most notable is Santa Monica. If you miss at SMO, it creates a heck of a chain reaction for planes on approach to LAX. The gap in traffic they have to create is like 30 miles long.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Yes, LA airspace complex has a number of missed approaches that cause possible conflicts. One of the most notable is Santa Monica. If you miss at SMO, it creates a heck of a chain reaction for planes on approach to LAX. The gap in traffic they have to create is like 30 miles long.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how that happens? My experience is that missed approaches at SMO have no effect on LAX traffic. Circle to land from 21 to 3 had an impact, but that is no longer authorized. In any case, I don't see how any IFR arrival or departure at SMO would create a 30 mile long gap in LAX approach traffic.
 
aterpster said:
Can you explain how that happens? My experience is that missed approaches at SMO have no effect on LAX traffic. Circle to land from 21 to 3 had an impact, but that is no longer authorized. In any case, I don't see how any IFR arrival or departure at SMO would create a 30 mile long gap in LAX approach traffic.
Click to expand...
The VOR-A circling didn’t interrupt LAX traffic. It is still there, how often they use it, who knows.
 
luvflyin said:
The VOR-A circling didn’t interrupt LAX traffic. It is still there, how often they use it, who knows.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, I missed that.

What I recall is a KA arriving after the tower had closed. He didn't let anyone know he was going to CTL on Rwy 3. If I recall correctly he penetrated the "inviolate" protected airspace for 24L/R.
 
aterpster said:
Can you explain how that happens? My experience is that missed approaches at SMO have no effect on LAX traffic. Circle to land from 21 to 3 had an impact, but that is no longer authorized. In any case, I don't see how any IFR arrival or departure at SMO would create a 30 mile long gap in LAX approach traffic.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood something when it was told to me, but since the miss sends you to SADDE, you're getting right into the mix of the flow into the basin, then they have to vector you back in through all the other iron. Possibly the mess is limited to situations where controllers aren't given timely notice of the missed approach happening, and they have to scramble to accommodate it.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Maybe I misunderstood something when it was told to me, but since the miss sends you to SADDE, you're getting right into the mix of the flow into the basin, then they have to vector you back in through all the other iron. Possibly the mess is limited to situations where controllers aren't given timely notice of the missed approach happening, and they have to scramble to accommodate it.
Click to expand...
No, procedural separation is used. The SMO missed approaches level off at 5,000. LAX traffic arriving over the SADDE areas are restricted to 6,000. The Burbank sector owns 5,000, and below in that area. So, if the SMO missed approach airplane wants another approach, it is vectored back onto the approach by the Burbank sector.
 
aterpster said:
Yes, indeed, I missed that.

What I recall is a KA arriving after the tower had closed. He didn't let anyone know he was going to CTL on Rwy 3. If I recall correctly he penetrated the "inviolate" protected airspace for 24L/R.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that plane went a little wider than usual and caused enough of a loss of separation to make it an 'official' event. Do you remember what Approach it was? VOR-A, RNAV 21 or the Localizer Approach that used to be there? I don't remember if that one had straight in minimums, but it probably did.
 
aterpster said:
No, procedural separation is used. The SMO missed approaches level off at 5,000. LAX traffic arriving over the SADDE areas are restricted to 6,000. The Burbank sector owns 5,000, and below in that area. So, if the SMO missed approach airplane wants another approach, it is vectored back onto the approach by the Burbank sector.
Click to expand...
Yup. It'll end up going pretty much back up over VNY, then towards DARTS for another try.
 
Ok, next question. How do you become a TERPS person at the FAA? Is it a certain career path? Do you start as an ASI and move into it?

@Brad Z I have now sent my inquiry to the correct email. I also found someone at the TRACON to bug and he was nice enough to entertain my question with a helpful reply.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ok, next question. How do you become a TERPS person at the FAA? Is it a certain career path? Do you start as an ASI and move into it?

@Brad Z I have now sent my inquiry to the correct email. I also found someone at the TRACON to bug and he was nice enough to entertain my question with a helpful reply.
Click to expand...

Good question. The TERPS folks I knew were all former Military (most USAF) that retired and went to the FAA. The military also have their own internal procedure developers as well that transition to the FAA. I'm sure there's a civilian path as well, but I couldn't tell you the details.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ok, next question. How do you become a TERPS person at the FAA? Is it a certain career path? Do you start as an ASI and move into it?
Click to expand...

It's an independent career field like most others. Although I've worked with some former ASI's, that not a prerequisite or any kind of normal career transition.

Job openings are posted periodically on usajobs.gov, like most other government jobs. The majority of the positions are in Oklahoma City, although there is a small team in Silver Spring, MD.

If you want to set a filter on usajobs, the job series for TERPS is 1361, which is "Aeronautical Information Specialist". There are no current advertisements out. The most recent one closed in September, so they're undoubtedly still working on those.

This is the previous job ad, so you can see prerequisites and such:
USAJOBS - Job Announcement

Notice that this job ad, like most for this career field, is open to the public.

There is some specialized experience listed in the job ad. This can be a little confusing to read, but they do hire some people without this experience if you have a background in ATC, piloting, airport management, or something similar like that. More generally, people will come work for the contractor (Leidos) for a while until they get the experience needed to apply for (and to be competitive for) the Government job.

I see that Leidos does have a job listing on their website (searched for "TERPS"):
https://careers.leidos.com/jobs/7790057-terps-specialist

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions!
 
luvflyin said:
I'm guessing that plane went a little wider than usual and caused enough of a loss of separation to make it an 'official' event. Do you remember what Approach it was? VOR-A, RNAV 21 or the Localizer Approach that used to be there? I don't remember if that one had straight in minimums, but it probably did.
Click to expand...
Don't remember. Nor do I remember the localizer approach. Probably the VOR approach. It was when they had a real runway.
 
Ok @RussR I'm going a little overboard (but it's slightly therapeutic). Been reading some 8260.3D. Then I used my rudimentary Google Earth skills to coarsely chart this out...

36 approach.JPG

The gray area would be the intermediate approach area (4nm wide at the base narrowing to 2nm at the FAF). The blue area is the final approach area (2nm wide everywhere). I took the RNAV 18 approach to 3MY and followed the same assumptions (mostly) with a 4.6nm distance from the FAF to the runway and a 9.5nm distance from the IAF to the FAF. My understanding is the intermediate area has to be 1000 ft above the highest obstacle? Basing my area on the RNAV 18, I would be at 2300 feet by the FAF. For grins, let's just say I do 2300 feet at the IAF too. The blue X would be the problem. An antenna stands there at 1349 feet and would penetrate the 1000 ft plane. But if I raise the FAF to 2400 feet, then I would need to move the FAF back .33 nm mile (3 degrees is 300 feet per nm) and it would work? So the FAF moves to 5nm and 2400 feet and I would clear all obstacles.

Am I getting this right at all? Btw, I have not added the secondary areas on the sides of the polygons. I'm only depicting the primary areas.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ok @RussR I'm going a little overboard (but it's slightly therapeutic). Been reading some 8260.3D. Then I used my rudimentary Google Earth skills to coarsely chart this out...

View attachment 101720

The gray area would be the intermediate approach area (4nm wide at the base narrowing to 2nm at the FAF). The blue area is the final approach area (2nm wide everywhere). I took the RNAV 18 approach to 3MY and followed the same assumptions (mostly) with a 4.6nm distance from the FAF to the runway and a 9.5nm distance from the IAF to the FAF. My understanding is the intermediate area has to be 1000 ft above the highest obstacle? Basing my area on the RNAV 18, I would be at 2300 feet by the FAF. For grins, let's just say I do 2300 feet at the IAF too. The blue X would be the problem. An antenna stands there at 1349 feet and would penetrate the 1000 ft plane. But if I raise the FAF to 2400 feet, then I would need to move the FAF back .33 nm mile (3 degrees is 300 feet per nm) and it would work? So the FAF moves to 5nm and 2400 feet and I would clear all obstacles.

Am I getting this right at all? Btw, I have not added the secondary areas on the sides of the polygons. I'm only depicting the primary areas.
Click to expand...

:D

It's a good first try. Nice work. A few things, though.

First, the 8260.3_E_ is current, not the D. Second, for RNAV approaches, most of the particulars are actually in the 8260.58B. The .3E still has lots of general and common criteria that also applies to RNAV procedures, but if something is different, the .58B prevails. And the 58B has the shapes of the evaluation areas.

For RNAV (GPS) approaches, the intermediate segment does indeed start at 2 nm either side of centerline (for a total width of 4 nm - PLUS the secondary areas of 1 nm width each). So you're good on that. But the obstacle clearance in the intermediate segment is 500 feet, not 1000. 1000 is for initials, holding, and feeders in non-mountainous areas.

For the LNAV line of minima, the final segment width (primary area) is 0.6 nm either side of centerline, for a total primary width of 1.2 nm (plus 0.3 nm for secondary areas). So it's narrower than you drew.
For LNAV/VNAV, the shape is virtually identical, but the surface slopes and is more complicated.
For LPV, the shape and slope are different.

Your basic process about how to adjust the height of the FAF for obstacles in the intermediate segment is exactly correct. However, since the obstacle clearance in the intermediate is only 500 feet, a 2300 ft FAF works fine here. Or 2400 works fine. Or 2200. Or 2500. The height of the FAF isn't particularly critical in a situation like you have here, generally unless there is some other reason (like ATC restrictions or airspace or such), I'll just pick whatever gives about a 5nm final.
 
RussR said:
:D

It's a good first try. Nice work. A few things, though.

First, the 8260.3_E_ is current, not the D. Second, for RNAV approaches, most of the particulars are actually in the 8260.58B. The .3E still has lots of general and common criteria that also applies to RNAV procedures, but if something is different, the .58B prevails. And the 58B has the shapes of the evaluation areas.

For RNAV (GPS) approaches, the intermediate segment does indeed start at 2 nm either side of centerline (for a total width of 4 nm - PLUS the secondary areas of 1 nm width each). So you're good on that. But the obstacle clearance in the intermediate segment is 500 feet, not 1000. 1000 is for initials, holding, and feeders in non-mountainous areas.

For the LNAV line of minima, the final segment width (primary area) is 0.6 nm either side of centerline, for a total primary width of 1.2 nm (plus 0.3 nm for secondary areas). So it's narrower than you drew.
For LNAV/VNAV, the shape is virtually identical, but the surface slopes and is more complicated.
For LPV, the shape and slope are different.

Your basic process about how to adjust the height of the FAF for obstacles in the intermediate segment is exactly correct. However, since the obstacle clearance in the intermediate is only 500 feet, a 2300 ft FAF works fine here. Or 2400 works fine. Or 2200. Or 2500. The height of the FAF isn't particularly critical in a situation like you have here, generally unless there is some other reason (like ATC restrictions or airspace or such), I'll just pick whatever gives about a 5nm final.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the review and humoring me. I'll tell Google when it gets the search "TERPS procedures" not to have the first link come up as the D. :)

So I guess this roughly tells me the lack of an RNAV 36 approach is not due to obstacles, assuming the Garmin obstacle database isn't missing something massive.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Thanks for the review and humoring me. I'll tell Google when it gets the search "TERPS procedures" not to have the first link come up as the D. :)

So I guess this roughly tells me the lack of an RNAV 36 approach is not due to obstacles, assuming the Garmin obstacle database isn't missing something massive.
Click to expand...

Well the analysis you did in and of itself isn't sufficient to determine whether a lack of an approach is due to obstacles. There are a few other factors.
Vertically-guided approaches (e.g. LPV) require a detailed analysis of the obstacle environment just off the approach end of the runway. Obstacles considered here likely aren't tall enough to be included in a Garmin database (but I don't know for certain).
In order for the approach to be used at night, there is a similar evaluation, but requiring the obstacles be lit.
Terrain is also evaluated, as well as assumed vegetation height (trees), and allowing for 200 ft tall antenna towers on every piece of land more than 20,000 ft from the runway (because you're not required to notify the FAA of any construction below that height outside of that radius - for example, assumed ham radio antennas in everybody's backyard).
Then there are non-obstacle considerations like runway markings and lighting and such, which generally just affect the visibility minimums but also can prevent some types of minimums.
Day-only LNAV minimums are pretty simple to get, however.
 
RussR said:
Terrain is also evaluated, as well as assumed vegetation height (trees), and allowing for 200 ft tall antenna towers on every piece of land more than 20,000 ft from the runway (because you're not required to notify the FAA of any construction below that height outside of that radius - for example, assumed ham radio antennas in everybody's backyard).
Click to expand...
Wireless carriers make sure many of their cell sites top out at 199 feet.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Ok @RussR I'm going a little overboard (but it's slightly therapeutic). Been reading some 8260.3D. Then I used my rudimentary Google Earth skills to coarsely chart this out...


The gray area would be the intermediate approach area (4nm wide at the base narrowing to 2nm at the FAF). The blue area is the final approach area (2nm wide everywhere). I took the RNAV 18 approach to 3MY and followed the same assumptions (mostly) with a 4.6nm distance from the FAF to the runway and a 9.5nm distance from the IAF to the FAF. My understanding is the intermediate area has to be 1000 ft above the highest obstacle? Basing my area on the RNAV 18, I would be at 2300 feet by the FAF. For grins, let's just say I do 2300 feet at the IAF too. The blue X would be the problem. An antenna stands there at 1349 feet and would penetrate the 1000 ft plane. But if I raise the FAF to 2400 feet, then I would need to move the FAF back .33 nm mile (3 degrees is 300 feet per nm) and it would work? So the FAF moves to 5nm and 2400 feet and I would clear all obstacles.

Am I getting this right at all? Btw, I have not added the secondary areas on the sides of the polygons. I'm only depicting the primary areas.
Click to expand...
For RNAV procedures all designers now use an automation program called TARGETS. I've attached a brochure. As Russ says, some of the criteria are in TERPs. But, the most complex RNAV-specific are in 8260.58B. It is all but impossible to design an RNAV procedure manually. I have Delorme's (now a defunct company) XMAP GIS program with 1:24000 topographic data. I can design a VOR approach (simplistic criteria) but forget about RNAV. I can also design a holding pattern because it is essentially 1963 criteria. I have the current version of TARGETS (6.4) on my desktop, but I am limited because I am not behind the FAA's firewall. I use it mostly to import completed TARGETS projects when they are made available to me.

And, as Russ says, there has to be an appropriate survey of the runways and final approach areas.
 

Attachments

  • TARGETS-Brochure.pdf
    772.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
This is where having a knowledgeable airport consultant can be invaluable to grease the wheels with the FAA and anticipate problems and costs. We had two of the earliest LPV approaches designed for our airport, and they have been through several modifications since. These approaches have dramatically increased airport utility. Factors that influence design and maintenance include lighting, runway markings, VGSIs, and obstacle removal (trees on the approach paths don't stop growing or "appearing" on subsequent obstacle surveys).
 
I started the new approach process and came to the question about what category of planes you'd want it to accommodate. If you want it to handle C or D you have to attest that you've got airport approval. Sigh.

Through this process I've made a new friend at the tracon/tower. But I'm nowhere closer to requesting the approach.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I started the new approach process and came to the question about what category of planes you'd want it to accommodate. If you want it to handle C or D you have to attest that you've got airport approval. Sigh.

Through this process I've made a new friend at the tracon/tower. But I'm nowhere closer to requesting the approach.
Click to expand...
Who needs cat C or D? At 4000 feet I don't think anyone that needs to fly that fast would be able to land anyway.
 
Jim K said:
Who needs cat C or D? At 4000 feet I don't think anyone that needs to fly that fast would be able to land anyway.
Click to expand...
The RNAV 18 has C on it. It is NA for D. I was just trying to mirror the one we already have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top